Not The Onion

21694 readers

784 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

432

Judge Learns Lawyers on Both Sides of Case Used AI, Cancels Trial, Kicks Everyone Off the Case (www.404media.co)

submitted 13 hours ago by abacabadabacaba@infosec.pub to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

44 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bizarroland@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

There are explicit published guidelines for using AI in the legal field.

No court is actually against the use of LLM-generated text.

The problem is lazy lawyers. They just accept what is written on the screen in front of them. They do not rewrite it. They do not verify any quotes or legal briefs or opinions that it spits out at them.

And that is expressly forbidden. Everything that is submitted under a lawyer's name has to be either written by or directly reviewed and approved by that lawyer.

Even lawyers know 80% of any legal brief is just stuff put in there to meet the text requirements for review.

If you use an LLM to fill in that 80% with some manual guidance, then it can allow you to focus on the 20% of the legal brief that actually matters.